How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.pussycat wrote:Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.
=D> =D> =D>
How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.pussycat wrote:Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.
you mean the thing you said would ensure more $$$ for the VFL always ?Xman wrote:even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running timepussycat wrote:Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.
=D> =D> =D>
about as well as your cries of "regionals" and "our markets are worth so much more".....Raiderdave wrote:you mean the thing you said would ensure more $$$ for the VFL always ?Xman wrote:even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running timepussycat wrote:Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.
=D> =D> =D>
![]()
how'd that pan out d head![]()
![]()
Xman wrote:about as well as your cries of "regionals" and "our markets are worth so much more".....Raiderdave wrote:you mean the thing you said would ensure more $$$ for the VFL always ?Xman wrote:even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time
=D> =D> =D>
![]()
how'd that pan out d head![]()
![]()
we were. We got more!Raiderdave wrote:Xman wrote:about as well as your cries of "regionals" and "our markets are worth so much more".....Raiderdave wrote:you mean the thing you said would ensure more $$$ for the VFL always ?
![]()
how'd that pan out d head![]()
![]()
ah no
you lot boasted ............. Oh oh oh .... we always win the metro ratings
we said .... we make up for this .. & ... surpass the VFL's ratings ... when our regionals are factored in
you lot said ..... oh , well .. the regionals don't matter cos they aren't counted properly
we said.... well , we'll see when the money is dished out
you lot said .... well even if they do put you ahead for ratings ... our games go for longer ... advertisers will pay more to broadcasters .. as they can show more adds in a VFL broadcast
we said ...well , we'll see when the money is dished out
ahhhhhhhh
who was right ?
Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatmentXman wrote:How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.pussycat wrote:Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.
=D> =D> =D>
Every program has a peak audience and an average lower than this. EVERY program. A shorter program will always have a higher average because the averaging result will be closer to the peak audience. Why do you think networks have begun coding the programs? For fun?pussycat wrote:Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatmentXman wrote:How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.pussycat wrote:Get used to running second Xman you'll be ding quiet a bit of it over the next few years.
=D> =D> =D>
That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.
So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.
On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?
really .... when did the NRL announce its deal had been finalised ?Xman wrote:we were. We got more!Raiderdave wrote:Xman wrote:about as well as your cries of "regionals" and "our markets are worth so much more".....
ah no
you lot boasted ............. Oh oh oh .... we always win the metro ratings
we said .... we make up for this .. & ... surpass the VFL's ratings ... when our regionals are factored in
you lot said ..... oh , well .. the regionals don't matter cos they aren't counted properly
we said.... well , we'll see when the money is dished out
you lot said .... well even if they do put you ahead for ratings ... our games go for longer ... advertisers will pay more to broadcasters .. as they can show more adds in a VFL broadcast
we said ...well , we'll see when the money is dished out
ahhhhhhhh
who was right ?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Xman wrote:Every program has a peak audience and an average lower than this. EVERY program. A shorter program will always have a higher average because the averaging result will be closer to the peak audience. Why do you think networks have begun coding the programs? For fun?pussycat wrote:Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatmentXman wrote:How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.
=D> =D> =D>
That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.
So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.
On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?![]()
The NRL have had this "false" averaging advantage for years. Now the AFL game is coded by CH 7 (not the AFL) the programs are more comparable. However the NRLs telecast is still shorter than the AFLs game section meaning they are still falsly advantaged
NZ's regionals, or ratings etc were never discussed in this manner and therefore not compared.Raiderdave wrote:really .... when did the NRL announce its deal had been finalised ?Xman wrote:we were. We got more!Raiderdave wrote:
ah no
you lot boasted ............. Oh oh oh .... we always win the metro ratings
we said .... we make up for this .. & ... surpass the VFL's ratings ... when our regionals are factored in
you lot said ..... oh , well .. the regionals don't matter cos they aren't counted properly
we said.... well , we'll see when the money is dished out
you lot said .... well even if they do put you ahead for ratings ... our games go for longer ... advertisers will pay more to broadcasters .. as they can show more adds in a VFL broadcast
we said ...well , we'll see when the money is dished out
ahhhhhhhh
who was right ?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
oh thats right .. they haven't![]()
whats that I can smell
fear ?
Its both stupid!Raiderdave wrote:Xman wrote:Every program has a peak audience and an average lower than this. EVERY program. A shorter program will always have a higher average because the averaging result will be closer to the peak audience. Why do you think networks have begun coding the programs? For fun?pussycat wrote:Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatment
That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.
So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.
On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?![]()
The NRL have had this "false" averaging advantage for years. Now the AFL game is coded by CH 7 (not the AFL) the programs are more comparable. However the NRLs telecast is still shorter than the AFLs game section meaning they are still falsly advantaged
so..... you were arguing that the longer broadcast is an advantage for the VFL
now
you're arguing its a disadvantage
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Some do it (the majority including the NRL don't) and they do it so they can say 'mine is bigger than yours. Even though the AFL's is actually puny- and shrivels up a little more each yearXman wrote:Every program has a peak audience and an average lower than this. EVERY program. A shorter program will always have a higher average because the averaging result will be closer to the peak audience. Why do you think networks have begun coding the programs? For fun?pussycat wrote:Cant you see xman that by making a statement like that your admitting you have a boring, long winded game that cant compete with the NRL unless it is given special treatmentXman wrote:How, we won this year, even with a cummulative count that ignores our 50% longer running time and overlapping broadcasts.
=D> =D> =D>
That survey, regardless of what you read into it, pits the figures for the average pre match/match/post match against your match average alone. not only that, it doesn't give any consideration to the home fans base of our 16th side.
So if you want to see this as some kind of victory, no matter how patheticly shallow the survey might be. It shows just how desperate you and your cronies must be.
On top of all that AFL has more games on FTA and almost twice the games on PTV. How pathetic are they?![]()
The NRL have had this "false" averaging advantage for years. Now the AFL game is coded by CH 7 (not the AFL) the programs are more comparable. However the NRLs telecast is still shorter than the AFLs game section meaning they are still falsly advantaged
Raiderdave wrote:
7K is a tremendous turnout